Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Naim

KLIA2 - New Mega Low Cost Carriers Terminal

Recommended Posts

One needs to go to Jakarta and see how they handle much busier airports on two runways. We now have three, i hope after few months they learn how to maximise the benefit of having additional runway.

 

My opinion, we invest too much on hardware (runway) but without suitable software (ATC skills) it will just be another runway.

 

You cant do much if there's bad weather. Delays are inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that they are also having problems meeting the 25 mins turnaround time. So this will have a knock on effect on subsequent flights. As such, early morning flights should be less affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MAHB Not Imposing RM3 Klia2 Fee


KUALA LUMPUR, May 10 (Bernama) -- Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) Saturday reiterated that it did not impose the RM3.00 klia2 fee introduced by AirAsia.


The airport operator said the aerobridge and common use check-in facilities are standard features of most major airports around the world.


These are typically treated as normal operating costs to airlines similar to utilities, ground handling, fuel, landing or parking charges, it said in a statement today.


MAHB also said AirAsia's migration was not without hiccups as all parties are working closely to minimise the inconvenience to travellers.


With AirAsia commencing its operations fully at klia2 on May 9, the terminal handled over 60,000 passengers in the 24 hours from midnight May 8 to midnight May 9.


MAHB said the unusually high number of gate changes by AirAsia was impacting many of its flights and affecting passenger convenience.


With the airline's assurance to minimise these changes, the situation should improve for passengers, MAHB added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I concern, the RM3 charges imposed by AirAsia just because of the fees of using aerobridge, using SITA system, new type of boarding (thick paper), new type of paper for documentation of passengers manifest that costs more compared to previous system. SITA system also very slow because it is an intergrated system. Why AirAsia put RM3 charges in the booking status? I believed that as they are a low cost carrier with no-frills concept, so they put each of the charges inside the invoice without charge the guest in the flight fare or hidden charge if any. Why we need to argue, complaint about RM3 fee if you only pay RM3 for a better, convenience airport .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I concern, the RM3 charges imposed by AirAsia just because of the fees of using aerobridge, using SITA system, new type of boarding (thick paper), new type of paper for documentation of passengers manifest that costs more compared to previous system. SITA system also very slow because it is an intergrated system. Why AirAsia put RM3 charges in the booking status? I believed that as they are a low cost carrier with no-frills concept, so they put each of the charges inside the invoice without charge the guest in the flight fare or hidden charge if any. Why we need to argue, complaint about RM3 fee if you only pay RM3 for a better, convenience airport .

Well, the Airasia booking engine showing separate airport fees and charges is quite normal - they show them in addition to airport tax. If you book flights from Tokyo or Singapore (and other destinations), you will see additional airport charges, just like they now do for klia2.

 

A lot of people (including MAHB) chided Airasia for not wanting to pay the small fees for aerobridge, etc. when the issue surfaced during the construction of the terminal. Now the additional cost is passed on to the passengers, many are bitching. So why the double standards? Afterall, klia2 is a big improvement over LCCT - so the additional RM 3 is a small cost to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airasia can charge anything they want. They have the right.

 

They can name it whatever charges but why 'klia2' ?

 

As if they are trying to drag MAB.

 

Why dont just name it 'convenience charge'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can call it what they want - its up to the passengers to accept or reject them.

 

I just checked the fares for Bangkok and Malindo is clearly less expensive than Airasia. So passengers have a choice not accept Airasia's fares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airasia can charge anything they want. They have the right.

 

They can name it whatever charges but why 'klia2' ?

 

As if they are trying to drag MAB.

 

Why dont just name it 'convenience charge'

 

I think they're trying to make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airasia can charge anything they want. They have the right.

 

They can name it whatever charges but why 'klia2' ?

 

As if they are trying to drag MAB.

 

Why dont just name it 'convenience charge'

They should just call it 'convenience charge' then, put a '?' symbol next to it. So, guests would know what is 'convenience charge' is all about by just clicking that '?'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only Airasia fee I object to is the fee they levy for us to pay them - both the credit card and direct debit fees are not equitable. Real stupid logic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Air Asia wanted this to look like MAHB's fault, but it backfired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally had the chance to look at FR24 during the morning rush hour. It would appear that Runway 33 is used for takeoffs now and arriving aircraft are landing on runway 32L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

belived for this nominal rm3 charge by AK - that AK still makes more from it than just what MAHB or the use of the SITA system charged to AK. Like the use of aerobridge is at rm80 and if we divide it by 180 pax for an A320 - it works out to be only 44.5 cents per pax and don't think the use of SITA and paper would costs AK rm2. Even if based on 150 pax on a A320, the use of aerobridge costs only 53 cents per pax. Hence AK even have hike a ringgit or two to this and end up being rm3. If that's the case, then AK is not so right in making more than 100% from this marginal cost imposed by MAHB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If AK includes the cost into the ticket price and raise the ticket base price by RM3 (not showing RM3 as a separate tax / charge / fee or whatever you call it), will that close the issue ? :unknw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If AK includes the cost into the ticket price and raise the ticket base price by RM3 (not showing RM3 as a separate tax / charge / fee or whatever you call it), will that close the issue ? :unknw:

They are playing politics with the govt. and MAHB (GLC).

 

Of course, they could easily put this extra cost into any of their charges. But the fact that they chose to highlight it shows that they want everybody to know that this new klia2 is a higher cost airport. It is their way of saying that they fought (during the construction of the airport) to keep costs down for the passengers but lost the fight with the govt/MAHB. A RM 4b airport has to cost the passengers more.

 

Now everyone has to pay... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are playing politics with the govt. and MAHB (GLC).

 

Of course, they could easily put this extra cost into any of their charges. But the fact that they chose to highlight it shows that they want everybody to know that this new klia2 is a higher cost airport. It is their way of saying that they fought (during the construction of the airport) to keep costs down for the passengers but lost the fight with the govt/MAHB. A RM 4b airport has to cost the passengers more.

 

Now everyone has to pay... ;)

 

It's a better airport than the bus shed LCCT & passengers would have understood the need for the extra fee if AirAsia hadn't played this stupid game. I seriously don't understand why we need to continue with a bigger version of the bus shed when we have the ability to plan for the future.

Edited by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot better airport. I'll pay that RM3/- whatever they call it or whoever is imposing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well for one thing - if MAHB didn't charge AK for this small fee, then actually AK should not charge its pax. Wonder if Tiger air or Malindo added this rm3 in? Its not about the nominal fee of rm3 which am sure all including myself will gladly pay - the question is whether it is right for AK ti impose this fee and even make a small profit out of it from every pax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leon, I understand the public disagreement.

 

But, an airline or any business can impose whatever fee they wish to, whether it is hidden or otherwise.

 

And a fee does not necessarily represent just the cost element. It may include cost + profit (or gain).

 

In AK's case, it's conduct with regards to imposing such fee is not non-ethical. They can call the fee whatever they want to call it. It is purely a commercial decision. Nothing else.

 

 

Personally, I always tend to disagree if any business impose a fee on the service rendered to me. However, in AK's case and judging the quality of new facility offered at the new airport, I guess I am ok to pay that additional RM3/-. Tiger, Jetstar and Malindo have every right to impose but they either opt not to (for the time being) or include inside their fares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...